The FHWA’s VE program applies to the federal-aid program under which authorized funds are distributed to states for state Department of Transportation (DOT) projects. According to the FHWA, the program is designed to (1) encourage state DOTs to use VE,
|
TABLE 10.1 Summary of Savings in Federal-Aid Highway Programs, Fiscal Years 2003-2007
|
(2) ensure that National Highway System projects required by law and regulation (currently greater than $25,000,000 for federal-aid highway projects or $20,000,000 for bridges) receive VE reviews, (3) encompass a variety of VE activities focused on education and training, technical assistance, liaison with industry and states, promotional activities, and active participation in studies, and (4) focus on training federal, state, and local highway employees through the National Highway Institute’s VE workshop.
Table 10.1 summarizes past VE savings in the federal-aid program over a 4-year period as reported by the FHWA. Savings in 2007 on highway programs totaled nearly $2,000,000,000. In addition to these savings, other federal departments generated significant VE savings.
Articles 10.1.1 through 10.1.4 are based on information excerpted from the website www. fhwa. dot. gov/ve. Further information is available in the FHWA text, “Value Engineering for Highways,” available in each state DOT or FHWA office or from the FHWA VE coordinator.
The FHWA states the following regarding VE goals and objectives:
The goal of a VE study is to achieve design excellence. Its objectives are to improve quality, minimize total ownership costs, reduce construction time, make the project easier to construct, insure safe operations, and assure environmental and ecological goals. The VE team is looking for the optimum blend of scheduling, performance, constructability, maintainability, environmental awareness, safety, and cost consciousness. The VE process is not meant to criticize today’s designs or insinuate that the regular highway design process is not providing acceptable designs. This is not the case. The designs being prepared today are good designs, they can be built, and they will function as intended. Highway designers do not deliberately design poor value into a project; yet, it happens.
10.1.2 Reasons for Poor Quality
Reasons cited for poor quality in some highway designs are as follows:
Lack of information
• Failure to get sufficient facts before starting.
• Lack of knowledge or misunderstanding of the full requirements of the original project plan.
• Decisions based on “educated guesses.”
Wrong beliefs
• Erroneous interpretations or conclusions of the facts.
• Unfortunate experiences with past applications of materials, etc.
• Bias against proven technology.
Habitual thinking
• Doing things “the same way we’ve always done them.”
• Tendency to reuse what worked the last time.
• Copying standards of other agencies.
• Lack of attention to the current state-of-the-art.
Risk of personal loss
• Anything done over and over again minimizes risk through trial and error.
• Risk associated with trying something that you have not tried before.
• Decisions based on “nearly related” data, rather than the actual case.
Reluctance to ask for advice
• Designers are often very reluctant to seek advice from others in their field.
• Failure of designers to admit that they might not know all the answers.
Time pressures
• Need to provide a project design as quickly as humanly possible, sometimes even quicker.
• Pressure becomes so great that anything with a reasonable chance of working is designed into the project.
• Acceptance of the first workable solution in order to complete the design on time.
• No time to sit and contemplate.
• No time to sit and think up alternative approaches.
Negative attitudes
• Some people are reluctant to consider a change of any type regardless of its merit.
• Most designers feel they always provide the best, the first time, regardless of how much time they spend developing the design.
Rapidly changing technology
• Rapid strides taking place in the development of processes, products, and materials.
• Technology is constantly changing.
• No one person can be expected to be completely current in any field.
Strict adherence to “requirements”
• Requirements are often unrelated to required performance, materials, safety, or procedures.
• Assumed requirement when not specifically specified.
• Concentration on the development of a reliable system that exceeds all known and assumed requirements.
• Each unnecessary requirement that is met in a design costs money, but worse still, increases the chance of failure of the overall system.
Poor human relations
• Poor communications.
• Misunderstandings.
• Jealousy.
• Normal friction between human beings.
